Gerard Genette, Robert Scholes, Claude Lévi-Strauss, and others as needed. Where appropriate, I will also utilize traditional critical methods, observations of other Lovecraft scholars, and Lovecraft’s own theories about fiction and literature as revealed in his letters and nonfiction writings.
I realize that these methods were never intended to be used in the ways I will employ them. Although a “pure” structuralist would never approve of my interpretive technique, I feel that these various techniques “complement one another in addressing the fictional text from different angles” (Scholes, Semiotics 87) and that they can be an effective form of textual analysis. I will freely adapt these methods as needed in analyzing each particular story to achieve my goal of understanding Lovecraft’s fiction.
Perhaps the most difficult part of my work has involved choosing the specific stories for analysis, and I must confess that my choices are partly based on personal preference. I have tried to achieve a representative mixture of stories, including some of Lovecraft’s early work as well as his later and best-known stories. In each of these stories I have attempted to highlight specific themes and techniques through a variety of structuralist and other critical methods.
Rather than analyze the stories chronologically, I have arranged my analysis in three parts. Part One examines four of Lovecraft’s most well-known and widely reprinted stories in depth using structuralist methodology. I begin my discussion with “The Shadow Over Innsmouth,” where I take the reader “into the shadows” and introduce Lovecraft’s major themes and techniques; the remaining analyses in this section are more scientific and purely structuralist, utilizing the theories of Roland Barthes and Gerard Genette. My use of critical theory in this section attempts to analyze Lovecraft from an unbiased, “scientific” point of view, and demonstrates that Lovecraft’s stories have a great depth of meaning when subjected to such an analysis.
Part Two defines the horror genre as Lovecraft saw it, explores Lovecraft’s unique vision of the weird tale, and shows where his vision fits within the genres of horror and science fiction and within mainstream literature. Finally, Part Three explores Lovecraft’s vision of truth and shows how he expressed this vision through the devices of horror and science fiction. This section, in particular, will attempt to take Lovecraft out of the shadows of literature and expose him to critical light, where he can be evaluated as a twentieth century fiction writer rather than merely as a producer of “weird tales.”
The application of mainstream critical theory to these selected stories will demonstrate that Lovecraft was, indeed, a realist, and that his stories present a distinct and relevant view of the universe, a view that takes naturalism to the farthest limits of the cosmos. This analysis will show that Lovecraft’s stories transcend the genres of horror and science fiction, and, indeed, deserve a place in the canon of twentieth century American literature.
PART ONE
INTERPRETING THE SHADOWS
As I have stated in the Introduction, Part One of this work will examine four Lovecraft stories in great detail using a structuralist methodology. I have chosen to analyze the stories using this theory for several reasons. First, structuralists have always been attracted to popular literature. Early structuralist critics such as Vladimir Propp and Claude Lévi-Strauss examined myths and folktales; later structuralists studied detective stories (Todorov, Poetics 42-52) as well as science fiction (Scholes) and the literature of the fantastic (Todorov), stories which, I feel, represent the mythology of the twentieth century. Popular fiction reflects the thoughts and ideas of the culture which produces it, and structuralism defines itself in part as cultural analysis that “seeks to explore the relationship between the system of literature and the culture of which it is a part” (Scholes, Structuralism 11).
Secondly, Lovecraft’s stories make good material for a structuralist reading because they are short, narrative pieces with a definite plot structure. Traditional formalist techniques concentrate more on theme than method, while structuralists such as Gerard Genette and Seymour Chatman have developed a science of narratology. This approach to how a story works, in addition to what it actually says, seems most appropriate in examining an author who primarily wrote for the pulp magazines of his time.
The first of my methods, the theory of Gerard Genette, (Figures, and Narrative) distinguishes between narrative and discourse. The narrative, or “story,” includes the basic sequence of events that occurs in the text, while discourse refers to the manner in which the author tells the story. This method examines the narrative voice, time reference and frequency, and the pace of the actual events of the story. The critic looks at narrative voice to determine who narrates the story and through whose point of view the events are seen. This structuralist study goes beyond mere “point of view” to determine how and why a narrative may subtly shift from one focus character to another. The critic examines time reference and frequency to separate the present of the narrative from the past, as shown in flashbacks, and from the future, as shown in foreshadowings and predictions. Finally, the critic looks at the speed with which the discourse moves through the sequence of events in the story.
The second critical method used in this study is the semiotic theory of Roland Barthes from his book S/Z. In this book, Barthes examines a text by breaking it down into a series of “codes” common to all literature. According to Barthes, comprehension of anything, be it a work of literature, a piece of music, or an advertisement on television, requires the human mind to interpret it through fixed codes of understanding. Language itself represents such a code; unless one understands the “code” of English, for example, discourse in the language becomes meaningless. Barthes postulates the existance of six codes of understanding in any artistic work. These are the proairetic code (or code of action), the hermeneutic code (or code of enigmas), the cultural code, the connotative code, the symbolic code, and the textual code. An additional code, the psychoanalytical code, can be thought of as a specialized form of the symbolic code.
The first two codes, the action code and the hermeneutic code, work together to define the narrative elements that distinguish the story from the discourse, and complement the theories of Gerard Genette. These codes determine how the plot is constructed and help to isolate narrative techniques that make the story effective. The action code traces the physical movement of the action in the narrative, while the hermeneutic code reveals the series of questions or puzzles used the create suspense in the text. The reader desires the answers to these puzzles, yet the author creates suspense by witholding these answers until the last possible moment. This code is especially important in popular fiction—indeed, the detective story finds its sole raison d’être in the code of enigmas.
The next three codes, the cultural, connotative, and symbolic codes, work together to create character, enhance meaning, and determine theme in a literary work. The cultural code can be used to examine the literary work’s explicit and implicit references to the culture in which it was written. According to Barthes, no literary work can be entirely divorced from the culture that produced it. Understanding this code may expose themes and meanings deemed important by that particular culture. The connotative code schematizes the dominant connotations of the text’s language in regard to character and setting. This code often develops characters in traditional stories, and, in Lovecraft’s work contributes greatly to the overall mood of terror. Finally, the symbolic code assumes that meaning occurs through symbolic binary oppositions that create theme through their conflict. The psychoanalytical code, for example, is a specialized symbolic code based on Freud’s theories.
Barthes’ textual code, or metalinguistic code, shows the use of a metalanguage when “one speaks about what one is going to say” (“Valdemar” 139). One can loosely define this textual code as existing whenever a written work speaks about itself, or about the process of writing the text, or about writing or communication in general. The textual code often exposes themes dealing with writing and communication.
Barthes uses his codes to interpret specific literary works (S/Z, “Valdemar”) by dividing the
